Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GrumTum/Archive

20 March 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

duck test, previous user created this user talk (now deleted) and ws blocked now he has used this sock which may actually be the master. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''


 * User:King of Hearts and User:JamesBWatson it's hard to add diffs of page creations now deleted for evidence and Numbers and Words, didn't show up until after GrumTum was active. This is a great example of Good Hand/Bad Hand editing. The age of NumbersandWords account doesn't matter if that's the case. Also don't you think it's odd that part of the reason we blocked GrumTum was because of copyright infringement and NumbersAndWords creates an article that is also a copyright infringement? Both have an interest in british sports as well. If you can't see the duck or hear the loud quacking please wait for someone to see it before closing. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The evidence submitted did not constitute significant evidence of sockpuppetry: if you think that you have further evidence to offer, then by all means offer it, but that scarcely justifies criticism of others for declining a case where that evidence had not been submitted. Having said that, let's consider the new evidence that you have given. If we are to regard evidence at the level of two editors having an interest in two different sports, but both apparently living in the same country, and both having been known to infringe copyright, as convincing evidence of sockpuppetry, then pretty soon there won't be many editors left unblocked. To call such evidence "loud quacking" is astonishing. I did check the editing history of both editors, including deleted edits, and yes, I did notice the sport connection and the British connection, but the one editor's editing on cricket bore no resemblance whatever to the other editor's editing on football. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have zero problems criticizing people, I am rather blunt. I don't view what I said as criticism as it is quite easy to be fooled when people are being dishonest and I believe I have also expressed admiration for your thoughtfulness several times in the past so I'm obviously not attacking you. I can't really present the evidence as a lot of it is now deleted as I mention above but I will mention a few below

Consider the guidelines found at WP:SOCK which states these as possibilities or likelihoods,
 * Both editors in the same day are posting copyright violations.
 * WordsAndNumbers was not active for several months before being used to show the same behaviors albeit slightly differently and has not been active since.
 * Literally almost the only edits made by grumtum were all sports related, the only edits WordsAndNumbers have made is sports related (excluding the copyright vio they posted)
 * Reviving old unused accounts (sometimes referred to as sleepers) and presenting them as different users
 * "Good hand(WordsAndNumbers)" and "bad hand(GrumTum)" accounts: Using one account for constructive contributions and the other one for disruptive editing. I'm sorry but to me that makes this very loud quacking. I do believe in assuming good faith but I also think that in this case it is unrealistic to think this is something it is not I'm just saying that it stinks. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
No convincing evidence of sockpuppetry. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * - NumbersAndWords is a much older account. GrumTum seems to be targeting random usernames, some existent and others not. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 11:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)